COLORADO SUPREME COURT

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL

ANNUAL REPORT January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012

Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael L. Bender

Justice Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Justice Nancy E. Rice

Justice Nathan B. Coats Justice Allison H. Eid

Justice Monica M. Márquez Justice Brian D. Boatright

Office of Attorney Regulation James C. Coyle, Regulation Counsel

James S. Sudler, Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel Matthew A. Samuelson, Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel

Charles E. Mortimer, Jr., Deputy Regulation Counsel Margaret B. Funk, Deputy Regulation Counsel

1300 Broadway, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80203

Telephone: (303) 457-5800 Facsimile: (303) 501-1141 Toll Free: (877) 888-1370 www.coloradosupremecourt.com

2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Central Intake ........................................................................... 2

II. Investigation ............................................................................. 7

Dismissals With Educational Language ................................ 8

Review of Regulation Counsel Dismissals ........................... 9

III. Attorney Regulation Committee (ARC) ................................ 10

IV. Formal Complaints ................................................................. 13

V. Appeals ................................................................................... 18

VI. Attorney Discipline ................................................................ 19

VII. Immediate Suspensions .......................................................... 20

VIII. Disability Matters ................................................................... 21

IX. Contempt Proceedings ........................................................... 22

X. Magistrates ............................................................................. 22

XI. Reinstatement and Readmission Matters ............................... 23

XII. Trust Account Notification Matters ....................................... 24

XIII. Unauthorized Practice of Law ............................................... 26

XIV. Colorado State Board of Law Examiners .............................. 29

XV. Inventory Counsel .................................................................. 30

XVI. Public Speaking ..................................................................... 30

XVII. Ethics School ......................................................................... 31

XVIII. Trust Accounting School ....................................................... 32

XIX. Professionalism School – C.R.C.P. 201.14 ........................... 32

1

2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL

The Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel performs multiple regulatory and administrative duties. These duties include: 1. Field and investigate approximately 4,000 complaints filed with the Central Intake Division of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel;

2. Investigate and prosecute violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct under the direction of the Attorney Regulation Committee, C.R.C.P. 251.3; 3. Investigate and prosecute violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct relating to trust account overdraft notifications; 4. Investigate and prosecute attorney disability actions; 5. Investigate and prosecute petitions for immediate suspension, C.R.C.P. 251.8, C.R.C.P. 251.8.5, and C.R.C.P. 251.8.6; 6. Investigate and prosecute contempt proceedings for violations of the Colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding Attorney Discipline and Disability, C.R.C.P. 251.3(c)(7); 7. Investigate and prosecute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by attorneys serving as magistrates under the Colorado Rules for Magistrates; 8. Investigate and prosecute complaints alleging the unauthorized practice of law upon the request and direction of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, C.R.C.P. 228, et seq.; 9. Coordinate and investigate the filing of claims with the Colorado Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection under the direction of the Colorado Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection Board of Trustees, C.R.C.P. 251.3, et seq., C.R.C.P. 252, et seq.;

2

10. Perform attorney admission duties, including the administration of the Colorado Bar Examination and all character and fitness determinations; and represent and counsel the Colorado State Board of Law Examiners in inquiry panels and formal hearings as required by the rules, pursuant to the Colorado Supreme Court’s interim order dated December 1, 2011; 11. As requested, represent and serve as special counsel to the Commission on Judicial Discipline in matters related to the removal, retirement, suspension, censure, reprimand, or other discipline of judges, Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline, Chapter 24; 12. Obtain appointment of inventory counsel in cases where an attorney has become disabled, disappeared, or died, and assist inventory counsel with the client files and funds; 13. Provide extensive educational opportunities to the practicing bar and the public on topics related to attorney ethics; and 14. Perform duties on behalf of the Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education pursuant to the Colorado Supreme Court’s interim order dated December 1, 2011; The various duties of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel are set forth individually to reflect a summary of work performed in each area. The annual report of the Colorado Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection is under separate cover and is available online. In 2012, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel employed 20 full-time attorneys, including Regulation Counsel, two Chief Deputy Regulation Counsels, two Deputy Regulation Counsels, and two staff attorneys as well as 5 full-time, non-attorney investigators, a Director of Examinations, a Director of Character and Fitness and a Clerk of Attorney Registration/CLE Regulation.

ATTORNEY REGULATION I. CENTRAL INTAKE

In 1999, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel implemented a central intake program to field all requests for investigation. Central intake receives requests for investigation through phone calls from concerned members of the public, judiciary and lawyers. Prior to implementation of central intake, all complaints against attorneys were in writing. Typically, the office annually mailed 5,000 to 6,000 complaint forms to individuals who

3

inquired about filing a “grievance.” Generally, complainants returned about 25 percent of the forms. Many potential complainants simply found the prior intake system too complex or burdensome to follow through with their complaint.

Central intake now reaches virtually every complainant. By eliminating

the need to initiate a complaint in writing, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel is truly user friendly and available to a much broader range of the public. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel also accepts written and in-person complaints.

Table 1

Year Complaints Filed Percent Change From Prior Year

2012 3,983 -.02% 2011 4,081 -.001% 2010 4,089 -.02% 2009 4,169 +.01% 2008 4,119 +2% 2007 4,016 -12% 2006 4,570 +16% 2005 3,929 -8%

Prior to 1999, a yearly average of approximately 1,500 written complaints was filed and reviewed at the intake stage. In its fourteenth full year of operation (2012), central intake handled 3,983 complaints. Nearly the same number of individuals who in the past called requesting written complaint forms (of which only 25%-30% were returned) now are provided the opportunity to speak with an intake attorney. See Table 2.

Table 2

Year Intake

Complaint Calls Additional

Intake Calls Additional

Miscellaneous Calls

2012 3,983 4,489 16,093 2011 4,081 4,473 15,241 2010 4,089 4,906 16,026 2009 4,169 4,720 17,014 2008 4,119 5,142 18,850 2007 4,016 4,523 18,374 2006 4,570 4,904 16,740 2005 3,929 3,510 17,035

4

Measuring the efficiency and competency of central intake is critical to the Court, the public, and the Bar. Although there are many ways to evaluate the old system to central intake, it is important to ensure that the evaluation is statistically reliable. In this report, the following benchmarks are used:

Number of intake matters past and present;

The time a complaint was pending at the intake level; and

The handling of complaints at intake:

Number of complaints dismissed at intake,

Number of complaints resolved at intake by diversion,

Number of complaints processed for investigation.

Five experienced litigation attorneys, along with one non-attorney investigator and four support-staff members, work in central intake. Regulation Counsel (or Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel) reviews all offers of diversion made by the central intake attorneys. Additionally, at the request of either the complainant or the respondent-attorney, Regulation Counsel reviews any determination made by a central intake attorney. One of the goals of central intake is to handle complaints as quickly and efficiently as possible. At its inception, central intake set the inspirational goal of ten days to review complaints. In 2012, the average time from the original call to central intake and an intake resolution was 1.8 weeks. See Table 3. In 1998, prior to central intake, the average time matters spent at the intake stage was 13 weeks.

Table 3

Average Time (in weeks) 2012 1.8 2011 1.6 2010 1.7 2009 1.5 2008 1.5 2007 1.9 2006 1.5 2005 1.6

At central intake, three resolutions are possible:

The intake attorney may dismiss the matter if it is clear that no misconduct occurred;

5

If there is evidence of minor misconduct, and the misconduct fits within the guidelines set forth in C.R.C.P. 251.13, the intake attorney may offer diversion;1

If there is clear evidence of misconduct that falls outside of the diversion program or if the respondent-attorney rejects diversion offered at central intake, the matter is processed for further investigation and assigned to a trial attorney, C.R.C.P. 251.10.

Critical to the evaluation of central intake is the number of matters processed for further investigation versus the number of cases processed for investigation prior to implementation of central intake. In 1998, prior to the implementation of central intake, 279 cases were processed for further investigation. In 2012, central intake handled 3,983 complaints; 368 of those cases were processed for further investigation. See Table 4.

Table 4

Year Investigations

Initiated % Change From

Prior Year 2012 368 -.02% 2011 377 -.07% 2010 407 +.01% 2009 401 +11% 2008 360 -3% 2007 372 -7% 2006 402 +14% 2005 353 -11%

In conjunction with central intake, cases that are determined to warrant a public censure or less in discipline are eligible for a diversion program. See C.R.C.P. 251.13. Participation in diversion is always voluntary and may involve informal resolution of minor misconduct by referral to Ethics School and/or Trust School,2 fee arbitration, an educational program, or an attorney-

1 C.R.C.P. 251.13 provides diversion as an alternative to discipline. The alternatives to discipline (diversion) program offers several programs designed to assist the attorney in resolving issues related to his/her misconduct. Participation in the program is limited to cases where there is little likelihood that the attorney will harm the public during the diversion and where the program is likely to benefit the attorney. A matter generally will not be diverted if the presumptive range of discipline is likely to be greater than public censure; if the misconduct involves misappropriation of funds; or if there is serious criminal conduct, family violence, or actual injury to a client or other person. 2 Ethics School is a one-day program designed and conducted by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. The program is a comprehensive review of an attorney’s duty to his/her clients, courts, opposing parties and counsel, and the legal profession. The class

6

assistance program. If the attorney successfully completes the diversion agreement, the file in the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel is closed and treated as a dismissal. Since the diversion program became effective on July 1, 1998, the first full year of measurement was 1999. In 2012, at the central intake stage, 32 matters were resolved by diversion agreements. See Table 5. (A representative summary of diversion agreements is published quarterly in The Colorado Lawyer.)

Table 5

Year Central Intake

Diversion Agreements

2012 32 2011 42

2010** 51(52)* 2009** 45(53)* 2008** 46(49)* 2007** 48(50)* 2006** 39(45)* 2005** 50(58)*

*The first number is actual diversion agreements. The second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

**In 2004 the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel undertook efforts to refine the use of diversions. The office carefully analyzes each case to determine if a dismissal letter with cautionary language will sufficiently address the misconduct. As such, the number of diversions has decreased and the number of dismissals with cautionary language has increased. See Table 7.

In cooperation with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, the

Colorado Bar Association (CBA) has established fee arbitration committees that accept referrals. Complaints that do not allege excessive fees, but rather a dispute regarding payment or the amount of attorney’s fees, are referred to the

also covers conflicts, fee issues, law office management, and trust accounts. Attendance is limited to attorneys participating in diversion agreements or otherwise ordered to attend. Trust School is a half-day program presented by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. The school is available to attorneys and their staff. The class covers all aspects of an attorney’s fiduciary responsibility regarding the administration of a trust account. The class also offers instruction on accounting programs available for trust and operating accounts.

7

CBA for handling. If the matter is not resolved at fee arbitration, it is referred back to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel for review.

The CBA and several local bar associations offer conciliation programs

and voluntary panels that address issues of professionalism between and among lawyers. The programs do not address allegations of misconduct by an attorney. II. INVESTIGATION Matters docketed for further investigation are assigned to trial counsel within the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. Trial counsel completed a total of 298 matters involving 337 separate requests for investigation alleging attorney misconduct in the year 2012. The possible resolutions following the investigation are: Trial counsel finds no violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct

and submits a memorandum detailing the investigation to Regulation Counsel. See C.R.C.P. 251.11. Regulation Counsel may dismiss the matter or order further investigation;

Trial counsel determines that misconduct occurred and submits a written

report of investigation to the Attorney Regulation Committee with a recommendation of dismissal, private admonition, or formal disciplinary proceedings;

Trial counsel determines that misconduct within the provisions of

C.R.C.P. 251.13 occurred and submits a diversion agreement to the Attorney Regulation Committee for approval;

Trial counsel submits a stipulation recommending public discipline to the

Presiding Disciplinary Judge; Cases are placed in abeyance when an attorney is disbarred or is

transferred to disability inactive status during the course of an investigation; or

8

Cases go directly to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge or to the Supreme

Court without the necessity of action by the Attorney Regulation Committee, e.g., criminal conviction cases, reciprocal discipline cases, and cases in which an order of immediate suspension has entered at the investigative stage. See Table 6.

Trial counsel also investigates Unauthorized Practice of Law matters and

Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection matters. Statistics relating to the unauthorized practice of law are covered under a separate heading in this report. The Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection report is filed separately.

Table 6

Year Investigations

Initiated

Dismissed by

Regulation Counsel

To Presiding Disciplinary

Judge

To Attorney Regulation Committee

Directly to Presiding

Disciplinary Judge

Placed in Abeyance

Other Pending

2012 368 92 17(25)* 165(171)* 11(17)* 13(32)* 0 184 2011 377 204 35(44)* 143(154)* 11 18(20)* 0 153 2010 407 128 25(39)* 217(223)* 14(29)* 30** 0 187 2009 401 140 25(33)* 115(122)* 8 7(12)* 0 229 2008 360 169 24(43)* 125(130)* 16(26)* 7 0 143 2007 372 141 18(40)* 138(143)* 13(14)* 46 0 157 2006 402 165 24(58)* 115(125)* 14(19)* 0 0 169 2005 353 163 12(19)* 111(116)* 14 13 0 134

*The first number is actual files. The second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files. **Twenty of the thirty matters placed in abeyance concerned one respondent.

Dismissals With Educational Language

In October 2004, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel began tracking matters that are dismissed with educational language. The dismissals occur both at the intake stage and the investigative stage. Between January and December 2012, 136 matters were dismissed with educational language both at the intake stage and the investigative stage. Some of the matters involve de minimis violations that would have been eligible for diversion. Some of the dismissals require attendance at Ethics School or Trust Account School. See Table 7.

9

Table 7

Dismissals With Educational Language Year Intake Stage Investigative Total 2012 132 4 136 2011 199 25 224 2010 223 29 252 2009 159 27 186 2008 128 55 183 2007 116 66 182 2006 173 62 235 2005 133 81 214

Review of Regulation Counsel Dismissals

A complainant may appeal Regulation Counsel’s determination to dismiss the matter to the full Attorney Regulation Committee. If review is requested, the Attorney Regulation Committee must review the matter and make a determination as to whether Regulation Counsel’s determination was an abuse of discretion. See C.R.C.P. 251.11; see Table 8.

Table 8

Year Number of

Review Requests

Regulation Counsel

Sustained

Regulation Counsel Reversed

2012 1 1 0 2011 2 2 0 2010 0 0 0 2009 4 4 0 2008 2 2 0 2007 2 2 0 2006 4 4 0 2005 3 3 0

10

III. ATTORNEY REGULATION COMMITTEE (ARC) The Attorney Regulation Committee3 is comprised of nine members, six attorneys and three public members appointed by the Supreme Court with assistance from the Court’s Advisory Committee.4 One of the Attorney Regulation Committee’s primary functions is to review investigations conducted by Regulation Counsel and determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe grounds for discipline exist. See C.R.C.P. 251.12. Following review of the investigation conducted by Regulation Counsel, the Attorney Regulation Committee may dismiss the allegations, divert the matter to the alternatives to discipline program, order a private admonition be imposed, or authorize Regulation Counsel to file a formal complaint against the respondent-attorney.

3 The Attorney Regulation Committee is a permanent committee of the Supreme Court, and its members are selected by and serve at the pleasure of the Court, see C.R.C.P. 251.2. 2012 Attorney Regulation Committee members were Steven K. Jacobson, Esq., Chair (Boulder); John E. Mosby, Esq., Vice-Chair (Denver); Mac V. Danford (Fort Collins); Doris C. Gundersen, M.D. (Denver); Barbara J. Kelley, Esq. (Denver); Steven C. Lass, Esq. (Denver); Linda Midcap (Wiggins); Kurt L. Miller, D.M. (Aurora); and Lori M. Moore, Esq. (Colorado Springs). 4 The Supreme Court Advisory Committee is a permanent committee of the Court. Members of the Advisory Committee are selected by and serve at the pleasure of the Court, see C.R.C.P. 251.34. 2012 members were Justice Nathan B. Coats (Denver); Justice Monica M. Márquez (Denver); David W. Stark, Esq., Chair (Denver); Cynthia F. Covell, Esq., (Denver); Richard F. Hennessey, Esq., (Denver); Steven K. Jacobson, Esq., (Boulder); Barbara A. Miller (Denver); John E. Mosby, Esq., (Denver); Alexander R. Rothrock, Esq., (Englewood); and Daniel A. Vigil, Esq., (Denver). The general duties of the committee include coordination of administrative matters within all programs of the attorney regulation system.

11

In 2012 the Attorney Regulation Committee reviewed 171 matters.5 See Table 9.

Table 9

Year Cases reviewed

By ARC 2012 171 2011 154 2010 225 2009 122 2008 126 2007 143 2006 125 2005 116

Granting Regulation Counsel jurisdiction to dismiss cases following investigation resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases presented to the Attorney Regulation Committee. See C.R.C.P. 251.11. Review and dismissal by Regulation Counsel in lieu of review by the Attorney Regulation Committee further reduces the time that matters not warranting formal proceedings spend in the attorney regulation system. See Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10

Number of Requests for Investigation Dismissed After Investigation By the Attorney Regulation Committee

2012 0 2011 0 2010 2 2009 0 2008 1 2007 4 2006 0 2005 0

5 Because some matters are carried over from one calendar year to the next, the number of matters reviewed by the Attorney Regulation Committee and the number of matters dismissed by Regulation Counsel generally will not conform to the number of cases docketed or completed in the investigation area. See Tables 4, 6, and 9

12

Table 11

Number of Weeks from Case Assigned to Dismissal by Regulation Counsel/ARC

2012 25.4 2011 30.3* 2010 24.2 2009 22.2 2008 19.4 2007 21.7 2006 17.1 2005 15.3

*See footnote 3.

The Attorney Regulation Committee’s disposition of the 171 matters presented to the Committee is detailed in Table 12.

Table 12

Year Formal

Proceedings Diversion

AgreementsPrivate

AdmonitionConditional Admissions

Dismissals Total Cases Acted Upon

By ARC

2012 123 33(39) 9 0 0 165(171)*2011 95 36(46) 12(13) 0 0 143(154)*2010 175 37(42) 5(6) 0 2 219(225)*2009 87 20(25) 2(10) 0 0 109(122)*2008 95 24(28)* 6(7)* 0 1 126(131)*2007 105 28(32)* 1(2)* 0 4 138(143)*2006 89 22(27)* 4(9)* 0 0 115(125)*2005 84 22(27)* 5 0 0 111(116)*

*The first number is actual files. The second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files. Trial counsel averaged 24.8 weeks from the time the case was assigned to completion of the report of investigation. See Table 13. The office responsibilities in the area of Board of Law Examiner matters, Unauthorized Practice of Law cases, and Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection investigations result in increased caseloads for trial counsel.

13

Table 13

Number of Weeks from Case Assigned to Completion of Report/Diversion/Stipulation 2012 24.8 2011 25.4 2010 23.2 2009 22.7 2008 19.6 2007 19.1 2006 18.0 2005 15.9

IV. FORMAL COMPLAINTS

In 123 separate matters, the Attorney Regulation Committee found reasonable cause and authorized the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel to file a formal complaint. See C.R.C.P. 251.12(e). Several matters were consolidated, and the number of formal complaints filed in 2012 was 47. In certain cases, after authority to file a formal complaint is obtained, Attorney Regulation Counsel and Respondent enter into a Conditional Admission to be filed with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge without the filing of a formal complaint. See Table 14.

Table 14

Year Formal Complaints Filed Resolved Prior to Complaint Filed

2012 47(92)* 2(5)* 2011 35(90)* 9(19)* 2010 85(184)* 10(20)* 2009 44(68)* 13(15)* 2008 55(99)* 13(23)* 2007 52(115)* 2 2006 50(72)* 7(23)* 2005 48(92)* 8(18)*

*The first number is actual files. The second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files. The formal complaints filed, and those pending from 2012, in the attorney discipline area resulted in 14 trials (11 attorney discipline, 3 attorney reinstatement/readmission trials and 0 Board of Law Examiner trials). The trial division also participated in 148 additional matters before the Presiding

14

Disciplinary Judge (at issue conferences, status conferences, and pretrial conferences). Disposition of the matters is detailed in Table 15. In many cases, voluntary settlement officers are utilized in an effort to resolve pending matters. The voluntary settlement officers are generally senior judges, retired judges, or lawyers with significant experience in the area of attorney ethics.

Table 15

Year Attorney Discipline

Trials

Reinstatement Hearings

Conditional Admissions

Diversion Agreements

Dismissals Abeyance

2012 11 3 24(53)* 0 3 0 2011 22 3 43(91)* 2 7 1 2010 22(29) 2 46(96)* 2 2 2 2009 16(32)* 1 42(65)* 0 3 4 2008 15(23)* 2 42(63)* 5(7)* 2 5 2007 17(32)* 7 34(70)* 1 5 1 2006 17(46)* 4 28(77)* 2(4)* 3(4)* 2 2005 16(56)* 3 30(78)* 3(4)* 2(5)* 11

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files. In an effort to better protect the public, modifications in the attorney regulation system were directed toward a quicker resolution of the more serious matters. At the same time, matters that were less serious were more quickly resolved by diversion agreements at central intake, following investigation, or at the trial stage. See Table 16.

Table 16

Diversion Agreements at Intake Stage

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 51(52)*

2011 2012 50(58)* 39(45)* 48(50)* 46(49)* 45(53)* 42 32

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

15

Diversion Agreements at Investigative Stage

Approved by the Attorney Regulation Committee 2005

22(27)* 2006

22(27)* 2007

28(32)* 2008

24(28)* 2009

20(25)* 2010

37(42)* 2011

36(46)*2012

33(39)*

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

Diversion Agreements at Trial Stage Approved by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge

2005 3(4)

2006 2(4)

2007 1

2008 5(7)

2009 0

2010 2

2011 2

2012 0

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

Conditional Admissions at Investigative Stage Approved by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 12(19)* 24(58)* 18(40)* 24(43)* 25(33)* 25(39)* 35(44)* 17(25)*

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

Conditional Admissions at Trial Stage Approved by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 30(78)* 28(78)* 34(70)* 42(63)* 42(65)* 40(94)* 43(91) 24(53)*

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

In 1999, the Supreme Court created the Office of the Presiding

Disciplinary Judge. See C.R.C.P. 251.16. All formal attorney discipline matters are filed with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. Attorney discipline matters proceed much the way a civil case is handled in district court. For instance, the rules of civil procedure and evidentiary rules apply in attorney discipline matters. After a formal complaint is filed with the Presiding

16

Disciplinary Judge, and prior to trial, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge rules on all motions filed, conducts “at-issue” conferences, and resolves all pretrial issues. Prior to the trial, two hearing board members are appointed from a diverse pool of members of the Bar and members of the public. See C.R.C.P. 251.17. The two hearing board members, along with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, hear the evidence presented at trial. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge rules on all motions, objections, and other matters presented at trial or following trial.

After a formal complaint is filed with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, the matter may be resolved by dismissal, diversion, conditional admission of misconduct,6 or by trial. The following tables compare the length of time formal complaints are pending before Presiding Disciplinary Judge. Additionally, a comparison of the time period from the filing of the formal complaint until a conditional admission of misconduct is filed, and a comparison of the time period from the filing of the formal complaint to trial, is provided.

Table 17

Average Weeks From Filing of Formal Complaint to Conditional Admission/Diversion Filed

2012 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 27.3 weeks 2011 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 31.9 weeks 2010 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 25.2 weeks 2009 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 19.6 weeks 2008 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 18.7 weeks 2007 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 28.5 weeks 2006 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 19.9 weeks 2005 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 24.7 weeks

6 Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.22, at any point in the proceedings prior to final action by a Hearing Board, an attorney against whom proceedings are pending may tender a conditional admission of misconduct. The conditional admission constitutes grounds for discipline in exchange for a stipulated form of discipline. The conditional admission must be approved by the Regulation Counsel prior to its submission.

17

Average Weeks From Filing of Formal Complaint to Trial

2012 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 25.9 weeks 2011 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 39.7 weeks 2010 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 32.3 weeks 2009 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 41.6 weeks 2008 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 40.8 weeks 2007 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 34.8 weeks 2006 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 28.0 weeks 2005 Presiding Disciplinary Judge 28.5 weeks

Another comparison is the average time it takes from the filing of the formal complaint with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge until the Presiding Disciplinary Judge issues a final order.

Table 18

Average Weeks from the Filing of the Formal Complaint Until the Final Order is Issued by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Year Conditional Admission

or Diversion Filed Trial Held

2012 32.9 weeks 62.3 weeks 2011 30.6 weeks 41.8 weeks 2010 26.4 weeks 49.7 weeks 2009 20.3 weeks 61.1 weeks 2008 24.6 weeks 57.2 weeks 2007 26.1 weeks 40.8 weeks 2006 21.7 weeks 36.3 weeks 2005 27.3 weeks 36.7 weeks

18

V. APPEALS In 1999, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed or answered four appeals filed with the Appellate Discipline Commission. In September 2000, the Appellate Discipline Commission was eliminated, and appeals are now filed directly with the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2012, eight attorney discipline appeals were filed with the Court.

Table 19

Year Appeal Filed With: Number of

Appeals 2012 Colorado Supreme Court 8 2011 Colorado Supreme Court 14 2010 Colorado Supreme Court 6 2009 Colorado Supreme Court 4 2008 Colorado Supreme Court 2 2007 Colorado Supreme Court 8 2006 Colorado Supreme Court 4 2005 Colorado Supreme Court 0

Year Appeals

Filed Appeals

Dismissed Appeals Affirmed

Appeals Reversed

Appeals Pending

2012 8 2 4 0 3 2011 14 3 5 1 9 2010 6 1 1 0 4 2009 4 0 4 0 3 2008 2 0 4 0 1 2007 8 0 2 0 6 2006 4 1 1 1 1 2005 0 0 1 0 0

19

VI. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE Final dispositions of proceedings are reflected in Table 20.

Table 20

Year Abeyance Dismissals Diversions Public

Censures Suspensions Probations Disbarments

2012 0 3 0 8 43 21 8 2011 2 7 2 9 60(61)* 40 16 2010 2 2 2 15 56(59)* 29 9 2009 4 3 0 9 52(54)* 28(29)* 8(11)* 2008 5 2 5(7)* 5 51 35 10 2007 1 5 1 9 42 18 9 2006 2 3(4)* 2(4)* 5 44 21 20 2005 11 2(5)* 3(4)* 1 42 19 19

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

20

VII. IMMEDIATE SUSPENSIONS In 2012, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed 16 petitions for immediate suspension.7 The petitions are filed directly with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge or the Colorado Supreme Court. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge or a Justice of the Supreme Court may issue an order to show cause why the respondent-attorney should not be immediately suspended. The respondent-attorney may request a prompt hearing if the Supreme Court enters an order to show cause. In 2012, there were no hearings related to a petition for immediate suspension. Dispositions of the immediate suspension petitions are reflected in Table 21.

Table 21

Year Filed Suspended Suspended

(Child Support)

Suspended (Failure to Cooperate)

Felony Conviction

Reinstated Withdrawn Discharged

/Denied Pending

2012 16 3 0 6 0 2 0 3 1 2011 14 3 2 3 3 0 0 2 1 2010 19* 12 0 4 1 0 0 2 0 2009 17 7 0 6 1 0 0 4 1 2008 15 10 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 2007 22 18 0 6 2 0 0 4 1 2006 17 7 0 2 3 0 1 1 3 2005 17* 6 1 4 3 0 0 5 0 (Matters filed in the previous calendar year may be carried over to the next calendar year.) *One matter resulted in the attorney being disbarred.

7 Immediate suspension is the temporary suspension by the Supreme Court of an attorney’s license to practice law. Ordinarily, an attorney’s license is not suspended during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, but when there is reasonable cause to believe that an attorney is causing or has caused immediate and substantial public or private harm, immediate suspension may be appropriate. Petitions are typically filed when an attorney has converted property or funds, the attorney has engaged in conduct that poses an immediate threat to the administration of justice, or the attorney has been convicted of a serious crime. See C.R.C.P. 251.8. Additionally, under C.R.C.P. 251.8.5, a petition for immediate suspension may be filed if an attorney is in arrears on a child-support order. Note: On October 29, 2001, the Supreme Court adopted a rule change authorizing suspension of an attorney for failure to cooperate with Regulation Counsel. See C.R.C.P. 251.8.6. The rule change authorizes Regulation Counsel to file a petition directly with the Supreme Court alleging that an attorney is failing to cooperate in an investigation alleging serious misconduct. Proceedings under the rule are not disciplinary proceedings. See Comment to Rule 251.8.6.

21

VIII. DISABILITY MATTERS The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed 8 petitions/stipulations to transfer attorneys to disability inactive status in 2012. When an attorney is unable to fulfill his/her professional responsibilities because of physical, mental, or emotional illness, disability proceedings are initiated. Transfer to disability inactive status is not a form of discipline. Disability petitions are filed with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. See C.R.C.P. 251.23. In 2012, there were no hearings related to petitions for disability inactive status. An attorney who has been transferred to disability inactive status may file a petition for reinstatement with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. See Table 22.

Table 22

Year Filed Disability Inactive Status

Dismissed/ Discharged

/ Denied Reinstated Withdrawn Pending

2012 8 9 2 0 0 0 2011 10 8 1 1 0 3 2010 6 4 1* 0 0 1 2009 13 14 2 2 1 2 2008 19* 12 1 2 5 2007 11 5 5 1 0 2006 12 7 3 2** 3 2005 11* 8 5 2

(Matters filed in the previous calendar year may be carried over to the next calendar year.) *One matter was closed due to the death of the respondent during the proceedings. **In one matter the respondent was placed on disability and later reinstated from disability during the course of one year.

22

IX. CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel did not file any motions recommending contempt with the Supreme Court; there were no findings of contempt and no hearings regarding contempt. Contempt proceedings are filed when an attorney practices law while under suspension or disbarment. See Table 23.

Table 23

Year Motions for Contempt

Held in Contempt

Discharged\ Dismissed

Withdrawn Pending

2012 0 0 0 0 0 2011 1 0 0 0 1 2010 1 0 0 0 1 2009 0 0 0 0 0 2008 1 1 0 0 0 2007 1 1 0 0 0 2006 3 2 0 0 1 2005 1 1 1 0 0

(Matters filed in the previous calendar year may be carried over to the next calendar year.) X. MAGISTRATES Effective July 2000, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel undertook the responsibility of handling complaints against magistrates. See C.R.C.P. 251.1(b). In the year 2012, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel received 45 complaints against magistrates. See Table 24.

Table 24

Year Complaints Dismissed Diversion Investigation

Initiated 2012 45 42 1 2 2011 66 66 0 0 2010 55 55 0 0 2009 51 51 0 0 2008 49 49 0 0 2007 68 68 0 0 2006 60 60 0 0 2005 69 66 1 2

23

XI. REINSTATEMENT AND READMISSION MATTERS Eight reinstatement or readmission matters were filed with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel in 2012. When an attorney has been suspended for at least one year and one day, has been disbarred, or the court’s order requires reinstatement, he/she must seek reinstatement or apply for readmission to the Bar.8 Reinstatement and readmission matters proceed much like an attorney discipline case. Extensive discovery is undertaken to ensure that the attorney seeking reinstatement or readmission has complied with all court orders in the underlying discipline case. Typically, the matters proceed to hearing regarding the attorney’s fitness to return to active practice. An attorney denied readmission or reinstatement may not reapply for two years. Reinstatement from disability inactive status is governed by C.R.C.P. 251.30. Reinstatement from immediate suspension is governed by the rule applicable to the suspension. See C.R.C.P. 251.8, 251.8.5(d), 251.8.6(c).

Table 25

Year Filed Readmitted Reinstated Dismissed Withdrawn Denied Pending 2012 8 0 4 1 0 1 6 2011 3 1 6 0 0 1 3 2010 12 0 5 0 2 1 6 2009 6 1 1 1 4 0 5 2008 10 1 7 0 0 0 2 2007 12 1 6 2 1 0 7 2006 12 0 4 0 2 1 6 2005 5 1 2 0 2 1 1

(Matters filed in the previous calendar year may be carried over to the next calendar year.)

8 A disbarred attorney may seek readmission eight years after the effective date of the order of disbarment. The individual must retake and pass the Colorado Bar examination and demonstrate fitness to practice law. Any attorney suspended for a period of one year and one day or longer must file a petition for reinstatement with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. In some matters, reinstatement proceedings are ordered when the suspension is less than one year and one day. See C.R.C.P. 251.29.

24

XII. TRUST ACCOUNT NOTIFICATION MATTERS On May 13, 1999, the Colorado Supreme Court amended Colo. RPC 1.15 effective July 1, 1999. The various amendments require modification of trust accounting practices by Colorado attorneys. Essentially, all Colorado attorneys in private practice must maintain a trust account in a financial institution doing business in Colorado. The financial institution must, however, be approved by Regulation Counsel. The only criteria for approval is the financial institution’s agreement to report to Regulation Counsel any properly payable trust account instrument presented against insufficient funds, irrespective of whether the instrument is honored. The report by the financial institution must be made within five banking days of the date of presentation for payment against insufficient funds. The reporting requirement is a critical aspect of the Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection. The rule is designed to operate as an “early warning” that an attorney may be engaging in conduct that might injure clients. In 2012, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel received 262 notices of trust account checks drawn on insufficient funds. Because of the potentially serious nature, the reports receive immediate attention from the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. An investigator or attorney is required to contact the attorney account holder and the financial institution making the report. A summary of the investigator’s finding is then submitted to Regulation Counsel for review. If Regulation Counsel determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a conversion of client funds occurred, the matter is immediately assigned to trial counsel. If there is no evidence of intentional misconduct or inappropriate accounting practices, the matter is dismissed by Regulation Counsel. In 2005, the trust account table was expanded to reflect more categories in order to provide more information regarding the statistics of trust account notifications. See Table 26 for an explanation of the trust account notification matters resolved in 2012.

25

Table 26

2005 - 2012

Year Total

Reports Bank Errors

Bookkeeping/ Deposit Errors

Checks Cashed Prior To Deposit

Clearing/Improper Endorsement***

Conversion/ Commingling Assigned to

Trial Attorney

Diversions Other 9 Pending

2012 262 31(1)** 69(11)** 49(22)** 0 0 106(18)** 33 2011 256 25 111(19)** 28(15)** 23 2 60(9)** 26 2010 276 34(2)** 125(22)** 29(16)** 12 4(5)* 64(8)** 19 2009 278 34(1)** 125(22)** 23(17)** 14 5(6)* 64(10)** 11 2008 273 31 92(11)** 48(13)** 18 7(12)* 72(15)** 22 2007 272 66(2)** 100(13)** 38(16)** 23 8(12)* 35(2)** 30 2006 348 81(7)** 124(24)** 42(21)** 32 7 57(7)** 32 2005 314 65 125(21)** 30(19)** 46 4(8)* 41(2)** 27 *The first number represents actual files; the number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files. **The number in parentheses represents the number of cases that were dismissed with educational language. ***In 2012, four matters involved checks that were not endorsed or endorsed improperly.

1999-2004

Year Total

Reports

Bank Errors Bookkeeping/ Deposit Errors

Checks Cashed Prior To Deposit Clearing

Conversion/ Commingling Assigned to

Trial Attorney

Diversions Pending

2004 299 231 22 29 4(7)* 28 2003 288 214 40 19 10(16)* 18 2002 309 251 32 8(13)* 19 2001 342 313 27 2 6 2000 284 278 3 1(3)* 2 1999 210 164 10 3 2

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files.

9 The category Other includes errors due to unanticipated: credit card fees or charges, employee theft, forgery, stolen check or other criminal activity, check written on wrong account, charge back item (a fee charged to the law for a client’s NSF check) and check or wire fee not anticipated.

26

XIII. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW (UPL) The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel investigates and prosecutes allegations of the unauthorized practice of law. See C.R.C.P. 229.10 In 2012, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel received 80 complaints regarding the unauthorized practice of law. See Table 27.

Table 27

Complaints Received 2012 80 2011 147 2010 94 2009 144 2008 97 2007 103 2006 68 2005 91

The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee may direct trial counsel to seek a civil injunction by filing a petition with the Supreme Court or, in the alternative, offer the respondent an opportunity to enter into a written agreement to refrain from the conduct in question, to refund any fees collected, and to make restitution. Additionally, trial counsel may institute contempt proceedings against a respondent that is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See C.R.C.P. 238. In 2012, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee took action on 42 unauthorized practice of law matters, and 64 complaints were dismissed by Regulation Counsel, for a total of 106 completed matters. See Table 28.

10 The Colorado Supreme Court Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee is a committee comprised of 9 members, including both attorneys and non-attorneys. The members are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee members in 2011 were: Cheryl Martinez-Gloria, Esq., Chair (Denver); Elizabeth A. Bryant, Esq., (Denver); Cindy Dang, Esq., (Denver); Edward C. Gassman Esq., (Loveland); Samantha Halliburton, Esq., (Denver); Michael B. Lupton (Highlands Ranch); Brenda Mientka (Colorado Springs); William M. Ojile, Jr., Esq., (Denver); and Martha Rubi (Englewood).

27

Table 28

Unauthorized Practice of Law Dispositions

Year Filed

Dismissed by

Regulation Counsel

Dismissed After

Investigation by UPL

Committee

Abeyance Agreements

Formal (injunctive or contempt proceedings)

2012 80 64 0 0 13 29 2011 147 47 0 0 14 27 2010 94 24 0 2 4 25 2009 144 33(6) ** 0 0 12 17(25)* 2008 97 25(17)** 0 0 4 17(26)* 2007 103 16(13)** 0 0 19(22)* 9(14)* 2006 68 22(18)** 0 0 12(16)* 8(10)* 2005 91 27 0 0 6 12

*The first number represents actual files; the second number in parentheses represents the number of separate requests for investigation involved in the files **The number in parentheses represents the number of cases that were dismissed with educational language. (Matters filed in the previous calendar year may be carried over to the next calendar year.) The following information regarding the investigation and prosecution of unauthorized practice of law matters is provided for informational purposes: INTAKE: The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel typically receives

two or three general inquiries on unauthorized practice of law matters each day. These calls come from lawyers, judges, clients, or non-lawyers who have questions concerning Colorado’s multi-jurisdictional practice rule, C.R.C.P. 220, and also from individuals who may be interested in opening, or who have opened, a document-preparation business. Regulation Counsel uses these telephone inquiries as an opportunity to educate the lawyer, client, or non-lawyer-provider on the issues of what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and possible harm that can result from the unauthorized practice of law. Regulation Counsel discusses the impact of C.R.C.P. 220 (Colorado’s multi-jurisdictional rule, C.R.C.P. 221 and C.R.C.P. 221.1 (Colorado’s pro hac vice rule), and C.R.C.P. 222 (Colorado’s single-client certification rule). Regulation Counsel also discusses the fact that non-lawyers owe no duties of competence, diligence, loyalty, or truthfulness, and there may

28

be fewer remedies as there is no system regulating the quality of such services, no client protection funds, and no errors and omissions insurance. Regulation Counsel discusses the potential issues involving types and levels of harm. Regulation Counsel encourages a caller to file a request for investigation if they believe the unauthorized practice of law has occurred rather than dissuade the caller from filing an unauthorized practice of law request for investigation.

INVESTIGATION: The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel uses the

same investigation techniques in unauthorized practice of law matters that are used in attorney discipline matters. These techniques include interviewing the complaining witness, any third-party witnesses, and the respondent(s). Regulation Counsel orders relevant court files and other documents, and frequently uses the power of subpoenas to determine the level and extent of the unauthorized practice. If the unauthorized practice of law has occurred, Regulation Counsel attempts to identify and resolve the unauthorized practice, as well as issues involving disgorgement of fees and restitution with an informal agreement. These investigations create further public awareness of what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and this office’s willingness to address unauthorized practice of law issues.

TRIAL: Once matters are investigated and issues involving serious client

harm or harm to the legal system are identified, Regulation Counsel pursues enforcement of the rules concerning the unauthorized practice of law. Injunctive proceedings are used to ensure that future misconduct does not occur. Federal and state district court (and state county court) judges have taken note of this and submit the names of the problematic non-lawyer respondents. As a result of unauthorized practice of law proceedings, numerous immigration consulting businesses have been shut down throughout Colorado. In addition, other individuals who either posed as lawyers to unwary clients, or who otherwise provided incompetent legal advice were enjoined from such conduct. Two individuals were found in contempt of prior Colorado Supreme Court orders of injunction.

Regulation Counsel assigns trial counsel and non-attorney investigators to unauthorized practice of law matters. (The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel does not receive any budget allocation for the assigned attorneys, investigator, or support staff.)

29

XIV. COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel represents the Board of Law Examiners Inquiry Panel in formal hearings. See C.R.C.P. 201.10. If an inquiry panel of the Board of Law Examiners finds probable cause to believe that an applicant for admission to the Colorado Bar is mentally unstable or ethically or morally unfit for admission, the applicant may request a formal hearing. A formal hearing proceeds much like an attorney discipline matter. Trial counsel conducts an investigation and engages in discovery with the applicant. In 2012, no formal trials were held before a hearing panel of the Board of Law Examiners, no stipulations were filed, and no matters were appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. See Table 29.

Table 29

Matters referred to Regulation Counsel

Year Filed Admitted Not

Admitted Withdrawn Abeyance Pending

2012 1 1 1 1 0 1 2011 3 0 0 0 0 3 2010 1 1 1 0 0 3 2009 3 1 0 0 0 3 2008 4 1 1 0 0 3 2007 2 2 0 0 0 2 2006 2 2* 2 0 0 2 2005 3 0 0 0 0 3

*The hearing panel of the Board of Law Examiners denied admission to one applicant. The applicant appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court and was admitted.

30

XV. INVENTORY COUNSEL In 2012, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed fourteen petitions for appointment of inventory counsel. When an attorney has been transferred to disability inactive status, or when an attorney has disappeared, or when an attorney has died and there is no partner, executor, or other party responsible for conducting the attorney’s affairs, protective appointment of counsel is essential. With the assistance of attorneys and investigators from the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, inventory counsel reviews all of the files and takes any steps necessary to protect the interests of the attorney in question and the attorney’s clients. It is not unusual that the review includes hundreds of client files. The average number of files reviewed annually exceeds 10,000. The file inventory and return process may take months or years depending on the number of files, the area of practice, and the difficulty in locating the previous clients. See C.R.C.P. 251.32(h). The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel budgets $50,000 - $100,000 annually to handle inventory counsel matters. XVI. PUBLIC SPEAKING The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel presented 149 public speeches in 2012. The talks were to bar associations, law schools, civic organizations, and the general public throughout the State of Colorado. Literally thousands of attorneys and members of the public attended the various public-speaking engagements. Additionally, Regulation Counsel attorneys regularly participate as speakers in national forums. Attorneys within the office also participate in pro bono activities. The attorneys and investigators within the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel participate in many national and local professional activities. Many of the attorneys are also active in community organizations, youth sports organizations, college alumni organizations, and other community affairs.

31

XVII. ETHICS SCHOOL The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel created, designed, and staffs an Ethics School. In 2012, 110 attorneys attended five ethics classes presented. See Table 30.

Table 30

Year Classes Presented Attendance 2012 5 110 2011 5 161 2010 4 123 2009 5 143 2008 5 165 2007 5 135 2006 5 133 2005 5 157

The school is a seven-hour course that focuses on the everyday ethical dilemmas attorneys confront. The course addresses the following issues:

Establishing the attorney-client relationship;

Fee agreements;

Conflicts;

Trust and business accounts;

Law office management; and

Private conduct of attorneys.

The Ethics School is not open to all attorneys. Rather, the attorneys attending are doing so as a condition of a diversion agreement or pursuant to an order from the Presiding Disciplinary Judge or Supreme Court. The attorneys attending Ethics School are provided with a detailed manual that addresses all of the topics covered in the school, along with suggested forms and case law. The Ethics School manual is available for purchase for $150. The purchase price includes manual updates for one year. A manual may be purchased by contacting the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.

32

XVIII. TRUST ACCOUNTING SCHOOL In 2003, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel created a four-hour school that addresses the correct method for maintaining a trust account. The course is designed for either attorneys or legal support staff. The course instructors are trial attorneys from the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel and a certified QuickBooks instructor. In 2012, 49 attorneys or legal support staff attended five classes presented. See Table 31.

Table 31

Year Classes Presented Attendance 2012 5 49 2011 5 68 2010 5 63 2009 4 47 2008 5 56 2007 4 48 2006 4 56 2005 4 44

The course is accredited for four general Continuing Legal Education credits and is open to all members of the bar. The cost of the course is minimal so as to encourage widespread attendance. XIX. PROFESSIONALISM SCHOOL – C.R.C.P. 201.14 At the direction of the Supreme Court and in cooperation with the Colorado Bar Association, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel designed a professionalism school for newly admitted Colorado attorneys. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel designed the curriculum and teaches the course in such a fashion as to address the most common ethical dilemmas confronted by newly admitted attorneys. Attendance at the course is a condition of admission to the Colorado Bar. On an annual basis, nearly 1,000 admittees attend and participate in the training. Lawyers from the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel committed hundreds of hours to the planning, administration, and presentation of the professionalism course. This course is separate and distinct from the ethics school and trust accounting school presented by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. In 2012, the office participated in eighteen separate presentations of the course.